Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Dec. 31, 2025
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
123,149 – Prairie West Holdings, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Canadian County, Honorable Paul Hesse, Trial Judge. Prairie West Holdings, LLC, seeks review of a summary judgment the trial court entered in favor of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City. PWH seeks review to determine whether the trial court properly granted Archdiocese summary judgment on PWH’s breach of contract, quantum meruit, and estoppel claims. After review, we conclude the trial court properly entered judgment as a matter of law on the breach of contract claim and affirm as to this claim and as to the trial court’s denial of PWH’s motion to reconsider on this issue. But Archdiocese failed to set out undisputed facts supporting summary judgment on the quantum meruit and estoppel claims. We must therefore reverse the trial court’s summary judgment on those claims and its order denying PWH’s motion to reconsider as to those claims. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; FISCHER, J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. December 30, 2025
122,597 (Companion with Case Nos. 122,598, 122,599 and 122,600) – Justin and Jennifer Vogle, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. Premier Franchise Management, LLC, Defendant/Appellee, and Premier Pools & Spas and John Does 1-3, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Honorable C. Brent Dishman, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs Justin and Jennifer Vogle appeal a trial court order granting summary judgment in favor of Premier Franchise Management, LLC. The issue before us is whether Premier Franchise is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs’ claims based on Premier Franchise’s alleged agency relationship with Defendant Premier Pools & Spas, with whom Plaintiffs had a contract to construct a swimming pool. After review, we conclude summary judgment was proper, and we affirm the trial court’s decision. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; FISCHER, J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. December 30, 2025
122,598 (Companion with Case Nos. 122,597, 122,599 and 122,600) – Robb and Rhonda Porter, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. Premier Franchise Management, LLC, Defendant/Appellee, and Premier Pools & Spas and John Does 1-3, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Honorable C. Brent Dishman, Trial Judge. Plaintiffs Robb and Rhonda Porter appeal a trial court order granting summary judgment in favor of Premier Franchise Management, LLC. The issue before us is whether Premier Franchise is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs’ claims based on Premier Franchise’s alleged agency relationship with Defendant Premier Pools & Spas, with whom Plaintiffs had a contract to construct a swimming pool. After review, we conclude summary judgment was proper, and we affirm the trial court’s decision. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; FISCHER, J., and BLACKWELL, J., concur. December 30, 2025
Division III
123,509 – Julie Magness, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. City of Lawton, Oklahoma, A Municipal Corporation, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Comanche County, Oklahoma. Honorable Jay Walker, Trial Judge. Appellant Julie Magness appeals the trial court’s August 13, 2025 Journal Entry of Judgment granting summary judgment in favor of City of Lawton, Oklahoma. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we AFFIRM. Opinion by DOWNING, P.J.; BELL, C.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. December 30, 2025
Division IV
122,654 (Consolidated with Case No. 122,666) – In re the Matter F.R.G., a Deprived Child, Jacob Goins and Jessieka Degraff, Appellants, vs. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Mayes County, Hon. Rebecca J. Gore, Trial Judge. Jacob Goins and Jessieka Degraff appeal a trial court order on a jury verdict terminating their parental rights to the minor child, FG. We determine that State met its burden, and therefore based on the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s Order Terminating Natural Mother’s Parental Rights and the Order Terminating Natural Father’s Parental Rights, issued after a jury trial. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BARNES, P.J. and HIXON, V.C.J., concur. December 29, 2025
122,988 (Companion with Case No. 123,447) – AKY MD LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Erin Olmsted, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Jeff Virgin, Trial Judge. This appeal involves a contract dispute arising from the departure from Plaintiff by one of its employees – Defendant. The primary question presented is whether Defendant must pay Plaintiff liquidated damages for resigning prior to the end of the employment contract’s three-year term. Disputed questions of material fact remain as to whether termination of the contract proceeded under a subsection that does not trigger the liquidated damages provision. Moreover, disputed questions of material fact remain as to whether the liquidated damages provision constitutes a penalty. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s Judgment sustaining Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and we remand for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; HIXON, V.C.J., and HUBER, J., concur. December 29, 2025
123,447 (Companion with Case No. 122,988) – Christian Petricek, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. AKY MD LLC, D/B/A Just Kids Pediatrics, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Hon. Jeff Virgin, Trial Judge. This appeal involves a contract dispute arising from the departure from Defendant by one of its employees – Plaintiff. The primary question presented is whether Plaintiff must pay Defendant liquidated damages for resigning prior to the end of the employment contract’s three-year term. Because it is undisputed that Plaintiff provided 120 days’ written notice, we conclude termination of the contract proceeded under a subsection that does not trigger the liquidated damages provision. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the liquidated damages provision was triggered, the liquidated damages provision would constitute a penalty under the circumstances presented. Consequently, we reverse and remand with directions to the district court to enter summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by BARNES, P.J.; HIXON, V.C.J., and HUBER, J., concur. December 29, 2025
122,011 (Companion with Case No. 120,940) — Valliance Bank, Plaintiff/ Appellee vs. Derek R. Mask, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellant, and Robert M. Holbrook, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff vs. Roy Oliver, Third-Party Defendant/Appellee, and Stanton Nelson, Third-Party Defendant. Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County, Honorable Jeff Virgin, Trial Judge. Derek Mask appeals various aspects of the trial court’s award of fees and costs against him in favor of Valliance Bank and the court’s order awarding attorney fees and costs in his favor, claiming the award was insufficient. After review, we find the trial court’s orders on attorney fees and costs do not comply with the requirements mandated in Fleig v. Landmark Construction Group, 2024 OK 25, ¶ 21, 549 P.3d 1208, requiring us to reverse the orders of the trial court as to the amount of attorney fees and costs and remand for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; FISCHER, J., concurs, and BLACKWELL, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. December 30, 2025